KARNA KISHORE DEB BARMA Vs. ONGC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that has fallen for consideration in this case is whether an employee under the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (for short 'company'), who remains absent for a period of more than 7 (seven) months without any permission ceases to be in the employment of the said Company by operation of the provision contained in rule 14 of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Leave Rules, 1995.

(2.) THE short fact giving rise to the present proceeding is that the petitioner Shri Karna Kishore Debbarma was appointed as Fireman Grade-II under the Company on 11. 01. 1979 and got promotion to the post of Fire Supervisor on 31. 01. 1984. While serving as Fire Supervisor in the Tripura Project, he had fallen sick and remained absent from duties from 16. 07. 1995 without submitting any leave application. On 26. 09. 1995 he received a telegram from the Deputy Manager (P and A), the 4th respondent herein, asking him to resume duties followed by a memorandum dated 28. 09. 1995 declaring that the petitioner was absent from duties from 16. 07. 1995 without prior permission of the competent authority and that he was in the habit of absenting himself from duty without prior permission as observed from his past behaviour. As such type of unauthorized absence without prior permission amounts to negligence of duties calling for disciplinary action, the petitioner was asked by the aforesaid memorandum to explain why disciplinary action against him should not be initiated for his negligence of duties. He was directed to submit his explanation by 16. 10. 1995. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not in a position to respond to the said communication and after becoming fully cured, he resumed his duties on 19. 10. 1995. He submitted his joining report with medical certificate justifying his absence from duties for a period of 95 days from 16. 07. 1995 to 18. 10. 1995. It is his contention that on his joining report, the competent authority made endorsement to the effect that 'leave may be granted as per admissibility', but in spite of such endorsement, his joining report was not accepted. He continued to work from 19. 10. 1995 to 12. 01. 1996 whereafter, on 13. 01. 1996 he again fell sick and remained absent from duties without any application for leave. His grievance is that though his absence from duties from 16. 07. 1995 to 18. 10. 1995 was followed by a leave application on medical ground, he was not paid pay and allowances for the said period. Again, though he worked continuously from 19. 10. 1995 to 12. 01. 1996 before his second spell of illness, he was not shown on duty during that period. He had to remain absent from duties without seeking leave from 13. 01. 1996 to 15. 02. 1996 and thereafter, he resumed duties on 16. 02. 1996. He submitted joining report, which was, however, not accepted prompting him to submit representation explaining the reasons for his failure to join duties during the said period. He prayed for medical leave from 16. 07. 1995 to 18. 10. 1995 and from 13. 01. 1996 to 15. 02. 1996 which, however, could not evoke any favourable response. On 12. 05. 1998 after more than two years, he submitted a representation before the Chairman of the Company, which found no favour or response. On 01. 06. 1998 the 4th respondent informed him in writing that his joining report dated 16. 02. 1996 could not be accepted. On 13. 06. 1998, after 2 1/2 years he submitted another representation to the Chairman, which, however, met the same fate. On 04. 06. 1998, he approached the Labour Directorate by way of making a representation raising a labour dispute, which was, however, forwarded to the Regional labour Commissioner on 25. 06. 1998, as the matter relates to the Central Government. On 17. 06. 1999, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition for cancellation of the memorandum dated 01. 06. 1998, whereby the 4th respondent informed him that his joining report dated 16. 02. 1996 could not be accepted. He has sought further direction from this court to the concerned respondent to allow him to resume duties and to sanction his medical leave from 16. 07. 1995 to 15. 02. 1996.

(3.) THE respondents, inter alia, contended that the petitioner is a habitual absentee and from past records it was found that he skipped his duties without permission showing his utter indifference to his duties, which is detrimental to the interest of the Company. He remained absent without any permission from 16. 07. 1995 to 15. 02. 1996 for a period of more than seven months, which attracted the provision of rule 14 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Leave Regulations, 1968 (for short 'leave Regulation'), which provides that where an employee remains absent from duty for any period which exceeds the limit upto which he could have been granted leave under this rule, shall be deemed to have resigned from his appointment and shall accordingly cease to be in the employment of the Company unless the Company determine otherwise in view of any exceptional circumstances of a case.